Download Maps has map Tags

xxXEddieXxx

@Cernel
We could also do something like "size". This would be more explanatory and then there is no real need for abitrary numbers but we could just say tiny, small, medium, big , very big.

Panther

@Cernel said:

However, I would be interested hearing from @panther what he thinks would be here the preferable term between "Areas" and "Zones" and if there is an official distinction between the two terms.

While "Area" is not an official term, "Zone" is indeed used for "sea zones".

The official wording is "[The map] is divided into spaces, either territories (on land) or sea zones, which are separated by border lines."

Cernel

@Panther Then I would suggest changing "Areas" to "Spaces", that being the official term.

TheDog

@ All
We are keeping the 100s, 200s, 800+ etc

The maps are banded into 100 space groups,

its easy to appreciate/visualise the size of the map, we like what we like
its easy for me to pick from a 9 item pulldown

Cernel

@TheDog said:

@ All
We are keeping the 100s, 200s, 800+ etc

The maps are banded into 100 space groups,

its easy to appreciate/visualise the size of the map, we like what we like

its easy for me to pick from a 9 item pulldown

I think the most exact way to divide it would be 1-100, 101-200, 201-300 and so on. Otherwise, how do you classify a map with less than 100 spaces? I've seen you have it as -99, which breaks consistency and it looks a bit weird. (In this case, I guess it should rather be 99-.)

Also, why only 9 items? Is every map with 800 spaces or more grouped together? If it is not wanted to have any more hundreds over some limit, I would suggest the limit being the thousand and then going by thousands, so having 901-1000, 1001-2000 (and that's it for now because there aren't maps over 2000 spaces YET), but I think the best would be keeping the +100 metres so 901-1000, 1001-1100, 1101-1200 and so on until the 1501-1600 of "TerraFirma1939".

Cernel

To be clear, my smaller proposal would be this drop-down:
1-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-700
701-800
801-900
901-1000
1001-2000

(When TripleA will have a map with 2001-3000 spaces, then adding this additional group too.)

Cernel

Alternatively, it could be:
99-
100s
200s
300s
400s
500s
600s
700s
800s
900s
1000s

(This is simpler and clearer, but the first grop would have only 99 items - not being possible having a map with 0 spaces - and every other one before 1000 would have 100, which is a little bit inconsistent but not a big deal.)

TheDog

Added various FFA to the FFA, PVP, Solo tab/column.

@Cernel
Spaces: Done Rogers list. Im only part way through all the maps, it will take some time, I have to download a lot.

Currently there are only x8 800+ sized maps so not currently worth expanding beyond 800+, yet.

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Currently there are only x8 800+ sized maps so not currently worth expanding beyond 800+, yet.

OK. I still believe that a map having over 1500 spaces would be better classified as 1000s than as 800+.

How about changing -99 to 99-?

RogerCooper

@Cernel I actually would prefer the terms "areas" as "spaces" is ambiguous. The rules for Axis & Allies used the terms "territories".

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Added various FFA to the FFA, PVP, Solo tab/column.

Interesting addition about FFA, but it has several issues.

FFA is not alternative to PvP: it is rather a subset of PvP but really also of PvAI.
FFA may be understood as 3+ players and no teams: meaning a game in which every player (meaning power/polity/country/faction...) is on its own (and typically always at war with everyone else), so a map with 3 or more alliances (of which at least one has more than one player) could be seen as not being a FFA. According to Google, the prevailing meaning of FFA is indeed a no-teams game.
Anything like being or not being a FFA is a very much a game-related thing (not a map thing). For example, in the Napoleonic Empires map, you have 3 games, of which one is a 2 sided team game and the other two are FFA.

Instead of having FFA as part of that column, I rather suggest having an other column with the number of sides (For example, if the only sides are Axis and Allies, the number would be 2: passive neutrals like those of World At War or of 270BC Wars are of course not counted: these games are also 2 sided ones.). In its narrowest (and prevailing) interpretation, a FFA would be any game with 3+ sides inasmuch as the number of sides is equal to the number of players (which could be an other column).

Still, you would have to decide what to do for maps having multiple games with different sides. (For example, for Napoleonic Empires, the number of sides would be "2" (if you only look at the main game) or "2/5/8" if you look at each of its games.)

RogerCooper

@Cernel To me FFA (free-for-all), means everyone permanently at war with everyone. Some mods have relationships that can change in the course of the game, and can't be easily summarized as alliances.

To me FFA mods are uninteresting. If you are in the middle you can't accomplish anything, while if you are at the edge, you can often pull off an easy victory.

Cernel

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel I actually would prefer the terms "areas" as "spaces" is ambiguous. The rules for Axis & Allies used the terms "territories".

I think that per se the best term is "Zones". The "Sea Zones" are always called as such and TripleA does not have stuff like the "Mobilisation Zone", so it should be quite obvious that "Zones" means territories plus sea zones. However, I've checked the rule-books from Classic to Global, and the official term is "Spaces" or "Game Spaces".

Areas does not sound quite clear to me. An area could be a group of zones or a cosmetic area with no zones at all (like the one that World At War has between 118 and 124 Sea Zone or the many cosmetic islands of New World Order, having not only no ownership but neither existing at all beside visually). Moreover, I would argue that those pacific islands with multiple islands (or Turkey when the European and Asian parts are the same territory) are each a territory/zone/space with multiple areas, meaning multiple areas part of the same territory/zone/space (and I think it would be hard to argue against this).

(Obviously "territories" is a terrible term if non-convoy sea zones are comprised, and just one of the several cases in which TripleA technical terms are just bad. Let's keep them under the hood as much as possible.)

Definitions from Cambridge (first definition given):

Space: an empty area that is available to be used

Zone: an area, especially one that is different from the areas around it because it has different characteristics or is used for different purposes

Area: a particular part of a place, piece of land, or country

Territory: an area of land or sea that is controlled by a particular country

At the end, I think the easiest pick is just the official one: space (or game space).

Cernel

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel To me FFA (free-for-all), means everyone permanently at war with everyone. Some mods have relationships that can change in the course of the game, and can't be easily summarized as alliances.

Yah, what I was saying is that FFA is very ambiguous a term. Practically, it can mean one of 3 things, from the wider to the narrower interpretation.

A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides (either 3 or more players with only one player per side (so no actual sides) or 1 or more players per side).
A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides where every side is composed of only 1 player (so no actual sides).
A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides where every side is composed of only 1 player (so no actual sides) and every player is always at war with every other player.

Personally, I tend to understand it as definition 2, but I can totally see @rogercooper and other people understanding it as definition 3, as well as some other as definition 1.

A FFA can be an amazing game, but it is very hard to make a very good FFA (especially with ever-growing TUV dynamics like basic TripleA).